RIGHT TO SELF-

because the activities in which labor

organizations, associations and unions
of workers are engaged affect public
ORGANIZATION interest, which should be protected.

ARE THE MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES OF

DO ALL EMPLOYEES IN THE PRIVATE
ART. 82 SAME AS THE MANAGERIAL
SECTOR ENJOY THE RIGHT TO SELF
EMPLOYEES OF ART. 254? No.
ORGANIZATION?
In Franklin Baker vs Trajano provided for the test
In United Pepsi Cola Supervisory Union vs
of supervisory or managerial status:
Laguesma: Court held that managerial
employees are prohibited from exercising the The test of “supervisory” or “managerial
right to self-organization. Art. 245 of the Labor status” depends on whether a person
Code is valid: possesses authority to act in the interest
of his employer in the matter specified in
The rationale for this inhibition has been
Article 212 (k) of the Labor Code and
stated to be, because if these
Section 1 (m) of its Implementing Rules
managerial employees would belong to
and whether such authority is not
or be affiliated with a Union, the latter
merely routinary or clerical in nature, but
might not be assured of their loyalty to
requires the use of independent
the Union in view of evident conflict of
judgment. Thus, where such
interests. The Union can also become
recommendatory powers as in the case
company-dominated with the presence
at bar, are subject to evaluation, review
of managerial employees in Union
and final action by the department
membership.
heads and other higher executives of
In PAFLU vs Secretary, Court held that the company, the same, although
managerial employees can be prohibited from present, are not effective and not an
exercising right to self-organization because the exercise of independent judgment as
said right is merely a statutory grant: required by law.

The registration prescribed in paragraph In this case, the subject employees are not
(b) of said Section 23, RA 875 is not a managerial employees because they do not
limitation to the right of assembly or participate in policy making but are given ready
association, which may be exercised policies to execute and standard practices to
with or without said registration. The observe, thus having little freedom of action.
latter is merely a condition sine qua non
WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY
for the acquisition of legal personality by
IMPLICATION?
labor organizations, associations or
unions and the possession of the “rights In Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter
and privileges granted by law to vs Secretary, the Court held that under the
legitimate labor organizations.” The doctrine of necessary implication, confidential
Constitution does not guarantee these employees are similar to managerial employees,
rights and privileges, much less said and are thus likewise disqualified from joining
personality, which are mere statutory unions:
creations, for the possession and
exercise of which registration is required This doctrine states that what is implied
to protect both labor and the public in a statute is as much a part thereof as
against abuses, fraud, or impostors who that which is expressed.
pose as organizers, although not truly
No statute can be enacted that can
accredited agents of the union they
provide all the details involved in its
purport to represent. Such requirement
application. There is always an omission
is a valid exercise of the police power,
that may not meet a particular situation.
 What is thought, at the time of and Dunlop and reverted to its
enactment, to be an all-embracing pronouncement in Lopez that while
legislation may be inadequate to provide there is a prohibition against the
for the unfolding events of the future. mingling of supervisory and rank-and-
So-called gaps in the law develop as the file employees in one labor organization,
law is enforced. One of the rules of the Labor Code does not provide for the
statutory construction used to fill in the effects thereof. Thus, the Court held that
gap is the doctrine of necessary after a labor organization has been
implication x x x x Every statute is registered, it may exercise all the rights
understood, by implication, to contain all and privileges of a legitimate labor
such provisions as may be necessary to organization. Any mingling between
effectuate its object and purpose, or to supervisory and rank-and-file
make effective rights, powers, privileges employees in its membership cannot
or jurisdiction which it grants, including affect its legitimacy for that is not among
all such collateral and subsidiary the grounds for cancellation of its
consequences as may be fairly and registration, unless such mingling was
logically inferred from its terms. Ex brought about by misrepresentation,
necessitate legis. false statement or fraud under Article
239 of the Labor Code.
The Court also held that in determining whether
an employee is a managerial employee or not: It In this case, the Court also held that the charter
is the nature of the employee’s functions, and certificate need not be under oath:
not the nomenclature or title given to his job,
which determines whether he has rank-and-file, Considering that the charter certificate is
supervisory or managerial status. prepared and issued by the national
union and not the local/chapter, it does
HAS THE NEW PROVISION OF ART. 255 not make sense to have the
OVERTURNED THE RULING IN TOYOTA local/chapter’s officers x x  x certify or
MOTORS vs TMPCLU THAT IF A UNION’S attest to a document which they had no
COMPOSITION VIOLATES THE LABOR hand in the preparation of.
CODE, THAT IT COULD NO LONGER
POSSESS THE PERSONALITY TO FILE FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DOCTRINE OF
RECOGNITION? “SEPARATION OF UNIONS”?

Yes, the ruling has been overturned. In It has been overturned by the amendment of Art.
Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical 254, which provides that rank and file union and
Solidarity of Unions in the Philippines for supervisors’ union operating within the same
Empowerment and Reform (SMCC-SUPER) vs establishment may join the same federation or
Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation, the national union.
Court held that the inclusion of supervisory WHAT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (PUBLIC
employees in a rank-and-file union does not SECTOR) CAN FORM A UNION?
divest it of its status as a legitimate labor
organization, and that the doctrine in Toyota In Sec 3 and Sec 4 of EO 180, it provides those
Motors vs TMPCLU is no longer applicable: who cannot join an employees’ organization:

Petitioner union consisted of both rank- Sec. 3. High-level employees whose

and-file and supervisory employees. functions are normally considered as
Nonetheless, the inclusion of the policy-making or managerial or whose
aforesaid supervisory employees in duties are of a highly confidential nature
petitioner union does not divest it of its shall not be eligible to join the
status as a legitimate labor organization. organization of rank-and-file government
employees.
This time, given the altered legal milieu,
the Court abandoned the view in Toyota
 Sec. 4. The Executive Order shall not organizational unit shall be designated as the
apply to the members of the Armed sole and exclusive representative of the
Forces of the Philippines, including employees.
police officers, policemen, firemen and
jail guards. When is voluntary recognition allowed? Sec.
11. A duly registered employees' organization
NOTES ON EO 180: shall be accorded voluntary recognition upon a
showing that no other employees' organization is
1. Sec 1 provides that it only applies to registered or is seeking registration, based on
GOCCs with original charters records of the Bureau of Labor Relations, and
2. Sec 7 and 8 provides for the registration that the said organizations has the majority
of employees’ organization. It requires support of the rank-and-file employees in the
registration in the CSC and DOLE organizational unit.
(through the BLR)
When shall there be certification election? Sec.
Sec. 7. Government employees' organizations 12. Where there are two or more duly registered
shall register with the Civil Service Commission employees' organizations in the appropriate
and the Department of Labor and Employment. organizational unit, the Bureau of Labor
The application shall be filed with the Bureau of Relations shall, upon petition, order the conduct
Labor Relations of the Department which shall of a certification election and shall certify the
process the same in accordance with the winner as the exclusive representative of the
provisions of the Labor Code of the Philippines, rank-and-file employees in said organization
as amended. Applications may also be filed with unit.
the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor
and Employment which shall immediately WHAT CAN BE NEGOTIATED BY AN
transmit the said applications to the Bureau of EMPLOYEES’ ORGANIZATION?
Labor Relations within three (3) days from
receipt thereof. Sec. 13, EO 180. Terms and conditions of
employment or improvements thereof, except
Sec. 8. Upon approval of the application, a those that are fixed by law, may be the subject
registration certificate be issued to the of negotiations between duly recognized
organization recognizing it as a legitimate employees' organizations and appropriate
employees' organization with the right to government authorities.
represent its members and undertake activities
to further and defend its interest. The WHAT IS THE JURISDICTION OF PSLMC
corresponding certificates of registration shall be OVER VIOLATIONS OF GOV’T EMPLOYEES’
jointly approved by the Chairman of the Civil RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION?
Service Commission and Secretary of Labor and
Employment. In Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila vs Civil
Service Commission: PSLMC has jurisdiction
3. Sec 9, 10, 11, and 12 pertains to the over unfair labor practices.
Sole and Exclusive Employees’
PSLMC proceedings are non-adversarial in
Representative
nature and parties will be required to submit
position papers within 15 days from receipt of
What is the appropriate organizational unit? Sec.
notices.
9. The appropriate organizational unit shall be
the employers unit consisting of rank-and-file PSLMC may call on any officer or agency for
employees unless circumstances otherwise assistance. Composition:
require.
1) Chairman, Civil Service Commission
Who will be the Sole and Exclusive Employees’ Chairman
Representative? Sec. 10. The duly registered 2) Secretary, Department of Labor and
employees' organization having the support of Employment Vice Chairman
the majority of the employees in the appropriate
 3) Secretary, Department of Finance Commission, conformably to the
Member Administrative Code of 1987. Thus, Civil
4) Secretary, Department of Justice Service authorities have jurisdiction over
Member officials and employees of PAGBOR, not
5) Secretary, Department of Budget and labor authorities.
Management Member
4. Philippine International Trading
GOVT CORPORATIONS COVERED BY CIVIL Corporation
SERVICE LAWS In Philippine International Trading Corporation
1. Boy Scouts of the Philippines (BSP) vs COA (1999), the Court held that the PITC is
covered by the Civil Service and is covered by
In Boy Scouts of the PH vs NLRC (1991), Court the standardization of salaries.
held that BSP, its officials and staff, are
embraced in the civil service. BSP is regarded 5. Veterans Federation of the PH (VFP)
as “a government instrumentality under the 1987 The Veterans Federation of the Philippines is
Administrative Code: a public corporation covered by civil service
While the BSP may be seen to be a laws.
mixed type of entity, combining aspects GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS NOT
of both public and private entities, we COVERED BY CIVIL SERVICE LAWS; BY LC
believe that considering the character of
its purposes and its functions, the 1. PNOC-EDC (Energy Development
statutory designation of the BSP as “a Corporation)
public corporation” and the substantial
In PNOC-Energy Development Corp vs NLRC
participation of the Government in the
(1991), the Court applied the charter test, and
selection of members of the National
held that PNOC, having been incorporated
Executive Board of the BSP, the BSP,
under the General Corporation Law is a GOCC
as presently constituted under its
whose employees are subject to the provisions
charter, is a government-controlled
of the Labor Code.
corporation within the meaning of Article
IX (B) (2) (1) of the Constitution. 2. Food Terminal, Inc (FTI)
2. Local water districts In Lumanta vs NLRC & Food Terminal, Inc
(1989), the Court applied the charter test and
In Tanjay Water District vs Gabaton (1989), the
held that FTI is under the Labor Code:
Court held that local water districts are quasi-
public corporations whose employees belong to xxx FTI is [a] government-owned and
the civil service, and hence, their dismissal shall controlled corporation without original
be governed by civil service law, rules, and charter, it is the Department of Labor
regulations. and Employment, and not the Civil
Service Commission, which has
3. PAGCOR
jurisdiction over the dispute arising from
In PAGCOR vs CA (1991), the Court held that employment of the petitioners with
PAGCOR belongs to the Civil Service: private respondent FTI, and that
consequently, the terms and conditions
PAGCOR belongs to the Civil Service of such employment are governed by
because it was created directly by PD the Labor Code and not by the Civil
1869 on July 11, 1983. Consequently, Service Rules and Regulations.
controversies concerning the relations of
the employees with the management of 3. National Housing Corporation
PAGCOR should come under the
In TUCP vs National Housing Corporation
jurisdiction of the Merit System
(1989), the Court held that there is no
Protection Board and the Civil Service
impediment to the holding of a certification Cooperative is An employee
election among the workers of NHC for it is clear registered with the therefore of such a
that they are covered by the Labor Code, the Cooperative cooperative who is a
NHC being a government-owned and/or Development member and co-
controlled corporation without an original Authority. owner thereof cannot
charter.  invoke the right to
In its by-laws, its collective bargaining
4. Philippine Society for the Prevention Board of Directors for certainly an owner
of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) directs, controls, and cannot bargain with
supervises the himself or his co-
The Philippine Society for the Prevention of business and owners.
Cruelty to Animals, though with a charter, is manages the
not a government corporation; and it is thus property of the However, in so far as
under the coverage of the Labor Code. respondent it involves
cooperative. Clearly cooperatives with
5. Philippine National Red Cross then, the employees who are
(PNRC) management of the not members or co-
affairs of the owners thereof, such
The Philippine National Red Cross is neither respondent employees are
classified as an instrumentality of the State so as cooperative is vested entitled to exercise
not to lose its character of neutrality, nor strictly in its Board of the rights of all
a private corporation since it is regulated by Directors and not in workers to
international humanitarian law and treated as its owners-members organization,
auxiliary of the State (Liban vs Gordon). It is as a whole. collective bargaining,
covered by the Labor Code negotiations and
Respondent others as are
Note: If GSIS already paid the security agency, cooperative, as a enshrined in the
but said agency did not pass the payment to the juridical person Constitution and
guards, the guards can sue GSIS. Art. 106 and represented by its existing laws.
107 on the joint and several liability of BOD, can enter into
contractors applies even to government an employment with
agencies, but this is without prejudice to its owners-members.
reimbursement from the agency (GSIS vs NLRC
& Lanting Security). An owner-member
of a cooperative can
TEST TO DETERMINE COA’S AUDIT be an employee of
JURISDICTION the latter and an
ER-EE relationship
There is a new test, no longer the charter test. can exist between
them
In Oriondo vs COA, the test is: Issue: Whether an Issue: Whether an
employer-employee owner-member of a
A corporation, whether with or without
relationship can exist cooperative can
an original charter, is under the audit between the bargain collectively
jurisdiction of the COA as long as cooperative and an with the cooperative.
government owns or has controlling owner-member. Yes No
interest in it.

DIFFRENCE BETWEEN REPUBLIC vs

ASIAPRO COOPERATIVE and
COOPERATIVE RURAL BANK OF DAVAO vs
FERRER-CALLEJA

Republic vs Asiapro Rural Bank of

Davao vs Ferrer-
Calleja
 organized for the mutual aid and protection
of its members; for assisting such members
in collective bargaining; or for participating in
the formulation of social and employment
policies, standards, and programs, and is
duly registered with the DOLE in
accordance with Rule III, Section 2 of the
Implementing Rules.

The Court also held in this case that the

legal personality of a legitimate labor
UNIONS organization cannot be the subject of a
collateral attack. It may be questioned only
1. In Takata Corp vs BLR, the 20% minimum in an independent petition for cancellation.
requirement in Art. 240 pertains to EE’s
membership in the union and not to the list 7. What is the effect of registration? The LO
of workers who participated in the becomes a legitimate labor organization
organizational meeting. which has legal personality, and is accorded
the rights and privileges provided by law.
2. If you are a chartered local, you either have
provisional personality or full personality. In Pagpalain Haulers vs Trajano, the Court
You have provisional personality if you have held that requirements for registration
a charter certificate, but have not complied (independent union) is found in Art. 240.
with the other requirements in Art. 241. Department Order No. 9 dispenses with
the submission of books of accounts as
3. In Abaria vs NLRC, a local union which is a requirement for registration, though LOs
not independently registered cannot, upon are still required to maintain such.
disaffiliation from the federation, exercise
the rights and privileges granted by law to In Samahan ng mga Manggagawa ng
legitimate labor organizations. Samma vs Samma Corporation, the Court
held:
4. What is the legal significance of
affiliation? The mother union has the status Section 5. Effect of registration.—The
of an agent while the local union remains the labor organization or workers’ association
basic unit of the association, free to serve shall be deemed registered and vested with
the common interest of all its members, legal personality on the date of issuance of
subject only to the restraints imposed by the its certificate of registration. Such legal
constitution and by-laws of the association. personality cannot thereafter be subject to
collateral attack, but may be questioned only
5. Mere affiliation does not divest the local in an independent petition for cancellation in
union of its personality, neither does it give accordance with these Rules.
the mother federation the license to act
independently of the local union (Insular Unless petitioner’s union registration is
Hotel Employees Union-NFL vs Waterfron cancelled in independent proceedings, it
Insular Hotel Davao) shall continue to have all the rights of a
legitimate labor organization, including the
6. What is a trade union center? In San right to petition for certification election. If it
Miguel Corporation Employees Union vs is shown that petitioner’s legal personality
San Miguel Packaging Products Employees had already been revoked or cancelled with
Union, the Court held: finality in accordance with the rules, then it
is no longer a legitimate labor organization
xxx a trade union center is any group of with the right to petition for a certification
registered national unions or federations election.
 with the right to petition for a certification
In certification elections, the employer is a election.
bystander; it has no right or material interest
to assail the certification election. 13. CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION
CASES
8. What is the proper remedy for refusal to
register despite compliance with the In Itogon-Suyoc Mines vs Sangilo-Itogon
requirements? A mandamus, not a petition Workers (1968), the Court held that where a
for certiorari (Brillio vs Buklatan) labor union is a party in a proceeding and later it
9. What is the effect of incorporation? It is lost its registration permit in the course of, or
inconsequential as it does not confer during the pendency of the case, such union
juridical personality to the labor organization, may continue still as a party without need of
nor does it confer the rights and privileges substitution of parties, "subject however to the
accorded by law to legitimate labor understanding that whatever decision may be
organizations (Philippine Land-Sea-Air rendered therein will only be binding upon those
Labor Union vs CIR); (Cebu Seamen’s members of the union who have not signified
Association vs Calleja) their desire to withdraw from the case before its
trial and decision on the merits.
10. Is there collective bargaining in the In Standard Cigarettes vs CIR (1957), the SC
public sector? No. The terms and discussed when a complaint for unfair labor
conditions of employment in government are practice be considered a prejudicial
governed by law. question:

11. There are now only three grounds for A complaint for unfair labor practice may be
cancellation of union registration as considered a prejudicial question in a
provided in Art. 247. proceeding for certification election when it is
charged therein that one or more labor unions
12. What kind of fraud or misrepresentation participating in the election are being aided, or
is deemed sufficient for the cancellation are controlled, by the company or employer. The
of union registration? In S.S. Ventures reason is that the certification election may lead
International Inc., vs Ventures Labor Union, to the selection of an employer-dominated or
the Court held that to decertify a union, it company union as the employees' bargaining
must also be shown that there was representative, and when the court finds that
misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud said union is employer-dominated in the unfair
in connection with the application for labor practice case, the union selected would be
registration and the supporting documents, decertified and the whole election proceedings
such as the adoption or ratification of the would be rendered useless and nugatory.
constitution and by-laws or amendments However, where no such charge is made in the
thereto and the minutes of ratification of the complaint for unfair labor practice, and the
constitution or by-laws, among other complaining union is willing to undergo the risk
documents. of employer interference, the court may not
order the suspension of the proceeding for
What is the effect of filing a petition for certification election pending resolution of the
cancellation of registration? In Art. 246, unfair labor practice case.
filing of cancellation of registration does not
In Tablante vs Noriel (1978), petitioner is
suspend proceedings for certification
insistent that private respondent labor union
election, nor does it prevent the filing of a
having engaged in an illegal strike, its
petition for certification election. If it is
registration permit must be cancelled. Petitioner
shown that petitioner’s legal personality had
asserts that the Labor Code itself provides, in
already been revoked or cancelled with
another section, that cancellation of registration
finality in accordance with the rules, then it
follows from “any activity prohibited by law.” This
is no longer a legitimate labor organization
argument is false and misleading. The law appropriate collective bargaining unit is the
provides the grounds for cancellation and no exclusive representative of the employees in
grounds being existent in this case, petitioner such unit for the purpose of collective
has no cause of action. bargaining. The union (hereafter referred to as
respondent) is admittedly not the exclusive
In St. Luke’s Medical Center vs Torres (1993), representative of the majority of the employees
the Court held that only the collective bargaining of petitioner, hence, it could not demand from
agent, the local union SLMCEA in this case, petitioner the right to bargain collectively in their
possesses legal standing to negotiate with behalf.
petitioner.
15. Money claims cannot be the subject of
It is immaterial whether the representation issue settlement or compromise made by a
within AFW (federation) has been resolved with union without the individual consent of
finality or not. Said squabble could not possibly the workers. The union can only assist but it
serve as a bar to any collective bargaining since cannot decide for them (Marquez vs
AFW is not the real party-in-interest to the talks; Secretary)
rather, the negotiations were confined to
petitioner and the local union SLMCEA which is For waiver of money claims, there has to be
affiliated to AFW. Only the collective bargaining individual consent or ratification of the workers
agent, the local union SLMCEA in this case, or EEs involved. Officers nor majority of the
possesses legal standing to negotiate with union have no authority to waive the accrued
petitioner. A duly registered local union affiliated rights pertaining to the dissenting minority
with a national union or federation does not lose members even under the CBA which provides
its legal personality or independence. for a union shop (General Rubber and
Footwear Corp vs Drilon)
Appending “AFW” to the local union’s name
does not mean that the federation absorbed the 16. Re Art 250 (c): There are four instances
latter. No such merger can be construed. where the SEBA can request for audited
Rather, what is conveyed is the idea of financial statements:
affiliation, with the local union and the larger a. After it has been voluntarily
national federation retaining their separate recognized
personalities. b. After it has been certified as SEBA
by the DOLE
Yet the locals remained the basic units of c. Within the 60-day freedom period
association, free to serve their own and the prior to CBA’s expiration
common interest of all, subject to the restraints d. During the course of the collective
imposed by the Constitution and By-Laws of the bargaining negotiations
Association, and free also to renounce the
affiliation for mutual welfare upon the terms laid There has to be a written request. Refusal to
down in the agreement which brought it into provide the requested information upon written
existence. request constitutes unfair labor practice.
However, if the union fails to request it in
14. LLOs do not possess all the rights in Art. writing as required, the employer cannot be
242(a); they pertain to SEBAs held liable for unfair labor practice. (Standard
In Philippine Diamond Hotel and Resort Inc vs Chartered Bank Employees Union NUBE vs
Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union, the Confessor)
Court held that not every legitimate labor 17. The union can represent only as to matters
organization possesses the rights mentioned concerning the terms and conditions of
therein. Article 242 (a) must be read in relation employment, but they cannot negate the
to above-quoted Article 255. wishes of the members on matters that are
Only the labor organization designated or purely personal and individual to them.
selected by the majority of the employees in an
In Caltex Refinery Employees Association vs election protest. Thus, the Med-Arbiter rightly
Brilliantes, the Court held that decision of the exercised jurisdiction over the case.
EEs to be covered by the old retirement plan
should be respected by the union. Impeachment: In Litton Mills Employees vs
Calleja (1988), petitioner-union affiliated with a
18. RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF federation, which was done by its officer, without
MEMBERSHIP the support of the majority of the union
membership. The act of affiliating with a
Constitution and by-laws interpretation: In federation is a major modification in the status of
Johnson and Johnson Labor Union-FFW vs the petitioner-union. And such act is a violation
Director (1989), the SC held that the union of the rule that no modification of the CBA can
constitution is a covenant between the union and be made during its existence, unless either party
its members and among the members. There is serves written notice to terminate or modify the
nothing in their constitution which leaves the agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to its
legal interpretation of its terms unilaterally to the expiration dated. Hence, there was a violation of
union or its officers or even the general the existing CBA on the part of Umali.
membership.
In this case, the procedure in the constitution
To our mind, the constitution’s silence on [which and by-laws for impeachment was not followed
body has jurisdiction to determine whether a when Umali was impeached. Petitioners should
suspension or dismissal is for a reasonable have shown substantial compliance with said
cause or not] is a clear recognition of the labor impeachment procedure, by giving Umali ample
arbiter’s exclusive jurisdiction over dismissal opportunity to defend himself, as contrasted to
cases. After all, the union’s constitution and by- an outright impeachment, right after he failed to
laws is valid only insofar as it is not inconsistent appear before the first and only investigation.
with existing laws.
The issues in this case became moot because a
Right to vote: In Tancinco Employees vs faction of petitioner-union formed a new union
Ferrer-Calleja (1988), the Court held that: It is and was chosen as the collective bargaining
true that under Article 242(c) of the Labor Code, agent.
as amended, only members of the union can
participate in the election of union officers. The 30% requirement to report violations, not
question however of eligibility to vote may be mandatory: (Verceles vs BLR (2005))
determined through the use of the applicable
payroll period and employee’s status during the Major policy matters: In Halili vs CIR (1985), it
applicable payroll period. The payroll of the involved a contract that was only executed
month next preceding the labor dispute in case between the lawyer and officers of the union. It
of regular employees and the payroll period at or was not a contract with general membership
near the peak of operations in case of because only 14% of the total membership
employees in seasonal industries. was represented, which is violative of Art.
242(d) of the Labor Code:
Submission of the employee’s names with the
BLR as qualified members of the union is not a “The members shall determine by secret
condition sine qua non to enable said members ballot, after due deliberation, any
to vote in the election of union’s officers. It finds question of major policy affecting the
no support in fact and in law. entire membership of the organization,
unless the nature of the organization or
Exhaustion of remedies: In Villaor vs Trajano force majeure renders such secret ballot
(1986), the petitioners are deemed to have impractical, in which case the board of
exhausted the administrative remedies directors of the organization may make
prescribed in the union by-laws by reason of the the decision in behalf of the general
refusal of the Board of Directors to approve the membership”
Special Board of Inquiry that is to investigate the
Special assessments: In ABS-CBN SMC Employees vs Calleja (1989)
Supervisors vs ABS-CBN, et al (1999), the Court
held: Cebu Seamen’s vs Calleja (1989)

Article 241 speaks of three (3) requisites that ABS-CBN Supervisors vs ABS-CBN, et al (1999)
must be complied with in order that the special 21. What is the effect of a union becoming a
assessment for Union’s incidental expenses, local/chapter of a federation?
attorney’s fees and representation expenses, as a. If it is an independently registered
stipulated in Article XII of the CBA, be valid and union, it does not lose its
upheld namely: (1) authorization by a written independent legal personality
resolution of the majority of all the members at because there is no such provision
the general membership meeting duly called for in the Labor Code (Adamson vs
the purpose; (2) secretary’s record of the CIR)
minutes of the meeting; and (3) individual written b. The local becomes subject to the
authorization for check-off duly signed by the rules and regulations of the
employee concerned. federation. The federation has a
The prohibition against attorney’s fees in Article right to investigate and expel
222(b) of the Labor Code applies only when the members of the local on the basis of
payment of attorney’s fees is effected through its Constitution and by-laws
forced contributions from the workers from their c. From the CBA point of view, the
own funds, as distinguished from the union local is the principal and the
funds; and that no deductions must be taken federation is the agent; the real
from the workers who did not sign the check- party-in-interest is the local.
off authorization, applies to the case under d. A local may disaffiliate AT
consideration. ANYTIME from a federation,
provided it is approved by majority
19. What is a check-off? “A check-off is a of the bargaining unit, even if the
process or device whereby the employer, on Constitution and by-laws allow
agreement with the Union, recognized as disaffiliation only during the 60-
the proper bargaining representative, or on day freedom period.
prior authorization from its employees, e. The obligation to check-off
deducts union dues or agency fees from the federation dues terminates with valid
latter’s wages and remits them directly to the disaffiliation
union.” Its desirability in a labor organization f. Local union, not federation is liable
is quite evident. It is assured thereby of for damages arising from illegal
continuous funding. As this Court has strike, even if it was the federation
acknowledged, the system of check-off is who filed the notice of strike.
primarily for the benefit of the Union and
only indirectly, for the individual employees. 22. What is the substitution doctrine? In
(ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Benguet Consolidated vs BCI Employees
Members vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting (1968), the Court held:
Corporation)
The principle of substitution, formulated by the
20. INTRA-UNION DISPUTE CASES National Labor Relations Board, means that
where there occurs a shift in employees’ union
Duyag vs Inciong (1980) allegiance after the execution of a collective
bargaining contract with their employer, the
Kapisanan vs Hernandez (1967) employees can change their agent—the labor
LITEX Employees vs CIR (1982) union, but the collective bargaining contract
which in still subsisting, continues to bind the
Kapisana vs Trajano (1985) employees up to its expiration date. They may,
however, bargain for the shortening of said
Manalad vs Trajano (1989)
expiration date. And the only consideration for
the “substitutionary” doctrine is the employees’
interest in the existing bargaining agreement; the
agent’s (Union’s) interest never enters into the
picture.

The “substitutionary doctrine” provides that the

employees cannot revoke the validly executed
collective bargaining contract with their employer
by the simple expedient of changing their
bargaining agent. The new agent must respect
the contract. The employees, thru their new
bargaining agent, cannot renege on the
collective bargaining contract, except to
negotiate with management for the shortening
hereof.

The “Substitutionary doctrine” cannot be invoked

to support the claim that a newly certified
collective bargaining agent automatically
assumes all personal undertakings, such as the
no-strike stipulation in this case, assumed by the
deposed union. When the BBWU bound itself
and its officers not to strike, it could not bind all
the rival unions because the BBWU was the
agent only of the employees, not of the other
unions which possess distinct personalities.